• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Science Is Becoming Increasingly Unscientific[W:116]

Re: Science Is Becoming Increasingly Unscientific

Tim the plumber said:
Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets

1815 to 1823 rise of 0.8c.

1982 to 2002 rise of 1c.

So what on all counts there. The present conditions are not unusual. We only have a very brief history for records made using thermometers. There is nothing to say that the present situation is at all unusual.

P.S. False is probably the wrong word to use there, my bad, over blown and unsupportable would be better.
Click to expand...

That dataset is limited to central England.

Denier move #147.
 
Re: Science Is Becoming Increasingly Unscientific

Threegoofs said:
That dataset is limited to central England.

Denier move #147.
Click to expand...

Yes. It is also the only data set we have going back that far. Thus hardly cherry picking.

Any such period of climate history in any temperate location will show changes of that scale over the same sort of time periods. That's climate for you. When such changes happen there are no mass extinctions or civilization collapses.
 
LowDown said:
An article recently published in a journal from Britain's Royal Society, titled "The Natural Selection of Bad Science," explains that rewards for scientists have polluted the scientific process.



So most of this research is crap. It's not true. It's hard to tell which work is real and which is fraudulent. In order to do so one must get down in the weeds and learn the science, and one must be confident enough to be guided by what one finds, but most people are unwilling or unable to do so. Simply trusting the scientists, however, isn't a good idea.

Strip away all the nonsense in climate science, and what does one find? In my opinion, one finds that 1) there is too much uncertainty to make predictions about future climate that can guide public policy. and 2) there are no public policies that have been proposed or are feasible that would actually affect the climate in predictable or significant ways.

Science is becoming increasingly unscientific | Washington Examiner
Click to expand...

Science today is a commodity that is bought and paid for by corporate interests. Dow chemical buys research labs and pays for studies at prestigious universities in order to ensure the study finds what they want it to find. Pharmaceutical companies do the same with medical universities.
In fact almost everything that people accept as reality today is whatever corporate interests have a vested interest that they believe.
 
jdog said:
Science today is a commodity that is bought and paid for by corporate interests. Dow chemical buys research labs and pays for studies at prestigious universities in order to ensure the study finds what they want it to find. Pharmaceutical companies do the same with medical universities.
In fact almost everything that people accept as reality today is whatever corporate interests have a vested interest that they believe.
Click to expand...

Absolutely correct.

Science is a commodity these days and research is paid for.

Follow the money on climate change studies, and you will find most the funding comes from government agencies, that has a head of the department, that answers to the president.

The energy companies probably only spend under 1% of the money that comes from the opposing interests.
 
jdog said:
Science today is a commodity that is bought and paid for by corporate interests. Dow chemical buys research labs and pays for studies at prestigious universities in order to ensure the study finds what they want it to find. Pharmaceutical companies do the same with medical universities.
In fact almost everything that people accept as reality today is whatever corporate interests have a vested interest that they believe.
Click to expand...

Industries can't afford to fund bad research. They have to have accurate results. There is no way to fake the results of a phase 3 drug trial because responsibility for the study is split up between too many different groups at different locations. The data is collected from multiple centers, analyzed at another center, and the safety is monitored by a separate group. So even if the company did have its thumb on the scale in R & D it would fall apart at the phase 3 stage.

Government funded research is something else. Individual investigators get funded to do projects in their own labs. The possibilities for fudging the data are myriad, and the pressure to get positive and sexy results is enormous. It literally means the difference between putting food on the table at home and not.
 
LowDown said:
Industries can't afford to fund bad research. They have to have accurate results. There is no way to fake the results of a phase 3 drug trial because responsibility for the study is split up between too many different groups at different locations. The data is collected from multiple centers, analyzed at another center, and the safety is monitored by a separate group. So even if the company did have its thumb on the scale in R & D it would fall apart at the phase 3 stage.

Government funded research is something else. Individual investigators get funded to do projects in their own labs. The possibilities for fudging the data are myriad, and the pressure to get positive and sexy results is enormous. It literally means the difference between putting food on the table at home and not.
Click to expand...

So called research is all propaganda designed to sell products. If you do not understand that, you do not understand reality.
 
Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

[h=2]U.S. gov’t physicist sentenced to 18 months in prison for fraud[/h]with one comment
[FONT=&quot]A physicist formerly based at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in California has been sentenced to 18 months in prison for faking data. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]According to the United States Attorney’s Office in the Northern District of California, after receiving millions in government funding between 2008 and 2012, Sean Darin Kinion submitted faked data and reports to make it seem like he’d performed quantum computing work. Kinion pled guilty in June, 2016 to “a scheme to defraud the government out of money intended to fund research.” He has also been ordered to pay back $3,317,893 to the government.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]As readers may know, scientists who commit misconduct are rarely sentenced to prison, although there are some exceptions — most notably, Dong-Pyou Han, who last year was sentenced to nearly five years in prison (and pay back $7 million) after spiking rabbit blood samples to make a HIV vaccine look more effective.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Lynda Seaver, director of public affairs at the LLNL, told us Kinion was dismissed in February 2013, following an investigation that found “some discrepancies in his work.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office: Read the rest of this entry »[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
 
Jack Hays said:
Another attempt at sleight-of-hand to make The Pause disappear.


[h=1]Yet another study tries to erase “the pause” – but is missing a whole year of data[/h]From UC Berkeley News comes this paper that tries some new statistical techniques to get “the pause” to go away, following on with the infamous Karl et al paper of 2015, that played tricks with SST measurements done in the 40’s and 50’s to increase the slope of the warming. This aims to do the same,…
Continue reading →
Click to expand...

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

With all the jumping back and forth between buoy readings and readings taken from ship engine rooms to get the numbers they want, I'm actually not surprised that there is no scientific agreement at this time about whether the "Pause" will continue or not; although reading the words "the chilling effect of political inquisition" did make me want to clap at the author's excellent choice of words to describe how politicized Climate Science has become in the nearly two decades of ongoing disagreement about the "Pause," and the current effort by some to make the data just "disappear!" :shock: :mrgreen:
 
Jack Hays said:
Another attempt at sleight-of-hand to make The Pause disappear.


[h=1]Yet another study tries to erase “the pause” – but is missing a whole year of data[/h]From UC Berkeley News comes this paper that tries some new statistical techniques to get “the pause” to go away, following on with the infamous Karl et al paper of 2015, that played tricks with SST measurements done in the 40’s and 50’s to increase the slope of the warming. This aims to do the same,…
Continue reading →
Click to expand...

Soooo.... when you want to erase a couple of years of data because of an El Nino when comparing model predictions with actual temps you are NOT just using "sleight-of-hand" to make the warming disappear?

I guess this means that you think this kind of behavior is O.K. for denialists like yourself... but not for scientists. Not that all the data for 2016 is even available yet.

Jack Hays said:
...a defense of models cannot rely on an El Nino to make up deficiencies.
Click to expand...

:lamo
 
polgara said:
Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

With all the jumping back and forth between buoy readings and readings taken from ship engine rooms to get the numbers they want, I'm actually not surprised that there is no scientific agreement at this time about whether the "Pause" will continue or not; although reading the words "the chilling effect of political inquisition" did make me want to clap at the author's excellent choice of words to describe how politicized Climate Science has become in the nearly two decades of ongoing disagreement about the "Pause," and the current effort by some to make the data just "disappear!" :shock: :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Greetings, Polgara.:2wave:

This is what we have come to, sadly.:(
 
Buzz said:
Soooo.... when you want to erase a couple of years of data because of an El Nino when comparing model predictions with actual temps you are NOT just using "sleight-of-hand" to make the warming disappear?

I guess this means that you think this kind of behavior is O.K. for denialists like yourself... but not for scientists. Not that all the data for 2016 is even available yet.


:lamo
Click to expand...

I never suggested erasing any data, but I do think context is important when interpreting data.:roll:
 
Jack Hays said:
I never suggested erasing any data, but I do think context is important when interpreting data.:roll:
Click to expand...

You suggested that we can't use the latest El Nino to analyze climate motel predictions. Can't use, ignore, erase... they all do the same thing. Fact of the matter is that you are suggesting that we ignore data that is inconvenient to your point of view.

And then a few days latter you cut and paste another stupid article from WUWT that complains about scientists ignoring data in pretty much the same manner as you did.

Nice double standard you have there. The funny part is that it is clear that you are completely oblivious to much of the contradictory BS you push.
 
Buzz said:
Soooo.... when you want to erase a couple of years of data because of an El Nino when comparing model predictions with actual temps you are NOT just using "sleight-of-hand" to make the warming disappear?

I guess this means that you think this kind of behavior is O.K. for denialists like yourself... but not for scientists. Not that all the data for 2016 is even available yet.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...challenge-post1066721450.html?#post1066721450
:lamo
Click to expand...

WUWT blog has gone way down the rabbit hole of science denial and conspiracy theories.

The blithering idiots at WUWT didn't even realise that the paper was completed in March 2016. So how could they have had all of 2016 data to December? I doubt Watts or any of his fanatical zealots even read the paper.
 
Last edited:
Buzz said:
Soooo.... when you want to erase a couple of years of data because of an El Nino when comparing model predictions with actual temps you are NOT just using "sleight-of-hand" to make the warming disappear?

I guess this means that you think this kind of behavior is O.K. for denialists like yourself... but not for scientists. Not that all the data for 2016 is even available yet.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...challenge-post1066721450.html?#post1066721450
:lamo
Click to expand...
We know the GISS excludes known outliers from their data because they say so.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
sources: GHCN-v3 1880-11/2016 + SST: ERSST v4 1880-11/2016
using elimination of outliers and homogeneity adjustment
Notes: 1950 DJF = Dec 1949 - Feb 1950 ; ***** = missing
Click to expand...
The El Nino events are known outliers!
 
Buzz said:
You suggested that we can't use the latest El Nino to analyze climate motel predictions. Can't use, ignore, erase... they all do the same thing. Fact of the matter is that you are suggesting that we ignore data that is inconvenient to your point of view.

And then a few days latter you cut and paste another stupid article from WUWT that complains about scientists ignoring data in pretty much the same manner as you did.

Nice double standard you have there. The funny part is that it is clear that you are completely oblivious to much of the contradictory BS you push.
Click to expand...

Your post is factually inaccurate. I'm not surprised.
 
Quaestio said:
*Facepalm*
Click to expand...
So at what level do you think they eliminate outliers?

Did you see this:


1880-11/2016
using elimination of outliers and homogeneity adjustment
​

The adjustments corrupt the data. The outliers will be eliminated from the stations outside of an expected range, and the data shown will still be an average of the rest.

Please read the associated papers.
 
[h=1]A day of politics at Nature[/h]Posted on 06 Jan 17 by PAUL MATTHEWS • 28 Comments
I’ve commented previously on Nature’s ill-advised forays into political advocacy, as have others. It’s not a very new phenomenon — this piece dates from 2007. On Wednesday this week, January 4th, the former science magazine and its spin-offs surpassed themselves with no less that three political articles on the same day (HT Barry Woods and … Continue reading →
 
Jack Hays said:
Your post is factually inaccurate. I'm not surprised.
Click to expand...

Really?? Then why are Lord and longview defending your desire to ignore data based on the GISS's practice of removing outliers?
It is because they recognize what you are doing no matter how much you lie about it.
 
longview said:
We know the GISS excludes known outliers from their data because they say so.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

The El Nino events are known outliers!
Click to expand...

Lord of Planar said:
Statistics can do funny things.
Click to expand...

Lord of Planar said:
So at what level do you think they eliminate outliers?

Did you see this:


1880-11/2016
using elimination of outliers and homogeneity adjustment
​

The adjustments corrupt the data. The outliers will be eliminated from the stations outside of an expected range, and the data shown will still be an average of the rest.

Please read the associated papers.
Click to expand...

longview said:
Are you denying that the GISS excludes outliers, when they say they do?
Click to expand...

The elimination of outliers that GISS does is not even close to what Jack has suggested should be done when comparing temps to model predictions. From an associated paper from GISS:

...bad data in GHCN were minimized at NCDC [Peterson and Vose, 1997; Peterson et al., 1998b] via checks of all monthly mean outliers that differed from their climatology by more than 2.5 standard deviations. About 15% of these outliers were eliminated for being incompatible with neighboring stations, with the remaining 85% being retained.
Click to expand...

GLOBAL SURFACE TEMPERATURE CHANGE

So for you two to try and justify Jack's desire to ignore a significant part of an entire temp record when analyzing model predictions based on the fact that GISS does exclude outliers is just wrong. This is just another good example of you two either grossly distorting the facts or exposing your true ignorance of the science.
 
Buzz said:
Really?? Then why are Lord and longview defending your desire to ignore data based on the GISS's practice of removing outliers?
It is because they recognize what you are doing no matter how much you lie about it.
Click to expand...

Your presentation of my argument in your #238 is inaccurate. I have not proposed that any data be excluded at any time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom